British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, March 12, 2003

H0312pm-12

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 12, Number 12 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon.

Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon.

George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon.

Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon. Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ..................................Hon. Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon.

Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, John (L).........................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn................................................................John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 5457 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 5457 Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18) Hon. J. Reid University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21) Hon. G. Bruce J.

MacPhail Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 5458 Hazelton Secondary School D. MacKay Prince Rupert container port B. Belsey Joint strategy for downtown Victoria J. Bray Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 5460 School-based education funding J. MacPhail Hon. G. Hogg Affiliation of B.C. Teachers Federation with B.C.

Federation of Labour K. Krueger Hon. C. Clark Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets B. Penner Hon. R. Neufeld Availability of foster care for youth J. MacPhail Hon. G. Hogg Marijuana grow operations and electricity theft D. Hayer Hon. R.

Coleman Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 5462 Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 15) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 5463 Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 15) Standing Order 81 Motion ....................................................................................................... ............................................... 5463 J.

MacPhail Hon. G. Collins Hon. G. Bruce Standing Order 81 Motion (Speaker's Ruling).................................................................................... .................................. 5468

Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 5469 University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21) Hon. G. Bruce J. MacPhail Hon. S. Bond Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 5480 University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21) J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Bruce Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 5487 University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21) Royal Assent to Bills .......................................................................................................... ...................................................... 5488 Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 3) Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2003 (Bill 6) Income Tax Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 7) Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 8) Auditor General Act (Bill 9) Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 11) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 13) Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 15) University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act (Bill 21)

5457 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. J. Reid: Joining us, I would like to welcome today Ray Whitehead and Tom Harris, who are both members of the B.C. Ferries board of directors. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome. [1405] J. Bray: Being half Scottish, it's my pleasure to intro- duce three of my constituents: Roger and Sally McGuire and their son, Harry. They're joined today by Roger's parents, Frank and Diana.

Roger, a recipient of the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal, is the well-known pipe major of the regimental pipe band in the Canadian Scot- tish Regiment — Victoria's famous highland militia unit — and a founding director of the Victoria Military Music Festival Society, which arranges popular, exciting band concerts and tattoos in our capital city. I would ask the House to please make them all very welcome. W. Cobb: With us in the House today is Sharon Whitely, a longtime resident of Cariboo and a 28-year employee of the government. She is presently with Land and Water B.C.

In all those years, this is only the second time — and I understand it was only earlier this year — she's been in the precinct. Sharon is one of the hardest-working and most conscientious employees I know, and her attitude is not why something cannot be done but how we can make it happen. I ask the House to please join me in making her welcome. R. Hawes: T o d a y i n t h e g a l l e r y w e h a v e L t . - C o l . Don Copple, the division commander of the Salvation Army, and Capt. John Murray of the Salvation Army, who are here to hold some meetings with MLAs. Could the House please make them welcome. R.

Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce a constitu- ent who is visiting the House today. Carole Helter is a member of the parents advisory committee at the l'É- cole des Pionniers de Maillardville. Would the House please make her welcome. I. Chong: In the gallery today are two young adults whom I have had the pleasure of working with over the past year. The first person, Miss Lindsay McCray, began as a volunteer in my constituency office in Gordon Head and then went on to be a part-time con- stituency assistant.

Now, here in the Legislature build- ings, she is an assistant legislative assistant doing, I know, a fine job. The second individual is Mr. Rowan Shaw, another young man who has worked in my office since the be- ginning of this year, again providing invaluable service to my constituents. They're here to watch question pe- riod. I know it's exciting for them to see it in live, real action as opposed to on television, so I hope the House would make them both very welcome. Hon. R. Thorpe: Mr. Harry Chesher, the general manager of the Penticton Convention Centre, retires today after 22 years of service.

Harry started with the city in 1981, and during his employment he was a driv- ing force in the redevelopment of the convention centre in Penticton and spearheaded the 1988, 2000 and 2002 expansions of the centre. Over his 22 years of service he has worked in bringing over 2.5 million delegate-dates to Penticton. Harry plans to remain in Penticton and become even more involved in the community of the South Okanagan. Would this House please acknowledge Harry Chesher's contributions to the tourism industry of British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, it is indeed a pleasure for me to introduce to you a former Speaker of this House, who is sitting on the floor with us today. He's h e r e i n V i c t o r i a w i t h h i s w i f e , E l l a M a e . S h e i s i n t h e gallery and is otherwise known as Little Red. Harvey is a former Speaker and was elected to represent the rid- ing of Chilliwack in 1972, '75, '79 and '83. He served as Deputy Speaker and then Speaker from '78 to '82. In August of '82 his political career suffered a setback. He was made Minister of Agriculture and Food.

He has rallied from that and is looking good, and he's always welcome on the floor of this House. Please welcome Harvey Schroeder. [1410] Introduction and First Reading of Bills COASTAL FERRY ACT Hon. J. Reid presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coastal Ferry Act. Hon. J. Reid: I move that Bill 18 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. J. Reid: In December we announced a new future for B.C. Ferries and its role in our province's growing economy. B.C.

Ferries is being transformed into a modern, safe, reliable ferry system that is de- signed to provide superior service with no additional financial burden on taxpayers. With the introduction of this legislation, we will be establishing a new regulatory framework for coastal ferry services — an independent regulatory framework — and a new service delivery model. Coastal communities and ferry users will see improved service and greater cus- tomer choice, guaranteed service levels and fair rates, an

5458 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 independent regulator to protect the public interest, eco- nomic development and job creation, continued public ownership of ferry terminals, no new public debt and new mechanisms to ensure ongoing accountability. Fulfilling a new-era commitment, B.C. Ferries will also be designated an essential service, ensuring that coastal communities receive the service they need. The legislation will provide for a long-term contract be- tween the province of British Columbia and B.C. Ferry Services to establish a marine transportation system, while ensuring that B.C.

Ferry Services becomes a fi- nancially viable service provider for the first time in more than four decades. While designed to protect consumers, the new structure has enough flexibility to allow B.C. Ferry Services to encourage strategic private sector part- nerships and entrepreneurial ingenuity, which will transform our ferry services into a customer- focused, financially stable marine transportation system that will ensure the ongoing safety of its ves- sels, passengers and cargo. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from Her Hon- our the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act. Hon. G. Bruce: I move that Bill 21 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. G. Bruce: It is out of concern for students at UBC that I present Bill 21, the University of British Co- lumbia Services Continuation Act, for first reading.

Our first and most important priority is the 23,000 students impacted by the current labour dispute be- tween UBC and its striking CUPE members. This dis- pute poses a very real threat to students being able to complete their academic term. This could mean they cannot progress in their studies or, in some cases, graduate. That outcome is not acceptable. Government does not want to see students hurt by this labour dispute, but at the same time, we want to see bargaining succeed.

With the possibility of a long- term harmful impact to students' education, govern- ment can take some steps to help the process along and do what it can to end this impasse. The University of British Columbia Services Con- tinuation Act will give government the authority to impose a cooling-off period at the University of British Columbia.

This cooling-off will also see the parties re- turn to the bargaining table within 72 hours and will allow students to get on with their studies. [1415] In crafting this legislation, we have sought a reason- able balance that will allow the parties to continue to work on a resolution while students get to their classes. The last collective agreements that were in force have been extended for the period of this legislation or until the parties come to a new collective agreement. Finally, the legislation includes a sunset provision that will see the legislation expire on March 31, 2003.

It is my sincere hope that the parties will use this time creatively and responsibly but, most of all, in a manner that no longer makes students the focal point of negotiations. The government wishes to seek today, under standing order 81, that Bill 21 be moved through all stages in one day. The reason for this is twofold. First of all, 1,600 teaching assistants and 75 English- as-a-second-language instructors have been on strike since February 10, 2003. Secondly, on March 7, 1,400 support and library staff joined that strike.

The Min- ister of Advanced Education has informed members of government that 23,000 students are in jeopardy of losing their school year. That is why the govern- ment believes that given the urgency of the issue, this legislation should be put through this House at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that stu- dents can get to their classes. I move that the University of British Columbia Ser- vices Continuation Act, Bill 21, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading today. Bill 21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith. J. MacPhail: Mr.

Speaker, I request a clear 15- minute recess in order to examine this bill. I note the minister suggested the government was going to try and ram this through in one day under standing order 81. I need time to prepare an argument for your con- sideration before you make that determination. Mr. Speaker: By agreement, would it be all right with the Leader of the Opposition if we proceed through question period and then take our recess? J. MacPhail: T h a t ' s f i n e , a s l o n g a s i t w i l l b e a c l e a r recess with no other business. Is that your determination? Mr. Speaker: So ordered. J. MacPhail: Fine.

Statements (Standing Order 25

B) HAZELTON SECONDARY SCHOOL D. MacKay: Ensuring that our children are pro- vided with a good education is very important to the

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5459 people in the north. As a government we have pro- tected education funding and ensured that the re- sources are directed into the classroom, where they belong. We have developed a system that allows for all v o i c e s t o b e h e a r d — parents, teachers, students and principals. We believe educating children needs to be shared by all. The Fraser Institute's recent report on B.C. high schools revealed that Hazelton Secondary is one of the most improved schools in the province.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the staff and stu- dents of Hazelton Secondary for their hard work and dedication. The results are starting to show, and I have every confidence that the improvement is only the be- ginning. Not long ago Hazelton Secondary was ranked zero out of ten and near the very bottom of the school rank- ings. In 1995 nearly one in four students didn't gradu- ate. Last year only one in 20 failed to graduate. While this is not precisely where we want to be, we are defi- nitely heading in the right direction.

In part this progress can be attributed to Hazelton Secondary implementing a number of creative pro- grams to better connect students to their school. For example, monthly recognition assemblies and home- work clubs offered by teachers have improved the school culture. This flexibility and innovation is an example of the combined commitment our students and staff have shown to improving their education environment. They're doing their part, and I congratu- late them. We are doing ours.

Further, our government has pledged an additional $50 million to school boards across the province to meet increasing financial de- mands. Examples such as these demonstrate our gov- ernment's commitment to rural education by focusing resources on students. We are starting to see the re- sults. PRINCE RUPERT CONTAINER PORT B.

Belsey: I rise today to speak about a pending development of a world-class container port to serve northern British Columbia, a container port that will open the world to a northern British Columbia cargo route but, more importantly, will open northern British Columbia to markets around the world. [1420] Prince Rupert anchors North America's shortest and most efficient land-sea route to Asian markets. Small wonder that shippers increasingly look to Prince Rupert to solve their transportation problems.

More than 400 hectares of industrial land are open for devel- opment, while modern truck and rail infrastructure links this existing port to North America's industrial heartlands. Prince Rupert is 30 hours sailing time closer to Asia t h a n a n y o t h e r p o r t o f w e s t e r n C a n a d a o r t h e w e s t coast of North America. This reduces both the time and the costs of shipping and allows carriers an additional route, one round trip each year. The Port of Prince Rupert is accessible to the entire continent on all- weather roads and rail connections.

As a western ter- minus of CN Rail shippers, again the added advantage of the lowest rail grade through the mountains of any Canadian rail route and faster railcar turnaround time and access to 80 percent of CN's total capacity on state- of-the-art northern lines…. It is an ice-free harbour, one of the deepest in North America. It can accommodate not only the vessels of today but also the superships of tomorrow.

If you are a specialty grain producer in the Peace or a log home manufacturer in Prince George or a sawmill owner in Terrace or Smithers or maybe a pulp mill operator in Prince Rupert, a container port in northern British Columbia will open the world of op- portunity for marketing your raw product or your value-added product. JOINT STRATEGY FOR DOWNTOWN VICTORIA J.

Bray: Over the last few weeks I have been speak- ing in this House about the city of Victoria, the Vancou- ver Island health authority and the Victoria city police and their joint strategy to deal with the problems of drug use and homelessness in Victoria's downtown core. In their strategy, they call on the other levels of government — including the province — to work in partnership on several short-term and long-term strategies. I have been talking regularly with Mayor Alan Lowe over the last several weeks on where the prov- ince can assist with some immediate solutions. I also did a walkabout with Rev.

Al Tysick from the Open Door to meet many of the 65 permanently homeless persons living on the streets in the downtown core. Through these discussions, I have learned several things:

(1) The problem, although growing and more visi- ble, is solvable.

(2) We need to increase treatment and supportive housing for these individuals and improve access for the person with a mental illness and substance abuse issue to actually get into the system.

(3) This problem is not limited to downtown but is, in fact, throughout many family neighbourhoods in my community.

(4) The city, regional, provincial and federal gov- ernments must all be part of the solution. T h i s i s w h y I a m s o p l e a s e d t o a d v i s e t h i s H o u s e and my constituents that the provincial government has agreed to provide funding for one of the key short- term strategies identified by the mayor. This is the training and education of volunteers to expand needle collection services in the downtown area and adjacent neighbourhoods. Intensifying the needle cleanup pro- gram is one of the six short-term goals listed in the downtown action plan.

This provides increased public safety and also a visible sign to citizens and tourists alike that downtown is, in fact, safe. I am pleased to be able to work in cooperation with the city of Victoria and Mayor Lowe. Tomorrow night I will be on a panel discussing the issue of street drugs and treatment at the screening of the movie FIX: The Story of an Addicted

5460 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 City. I will continue to work with the city to find other opportunities to partner with the province on real solu- tions for all concerned. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions SCHOOL-BASED EDUCATION FUNDING J. MacPhail: The Minister of Children and Family Development is cutting the budget for specialized pro- grams for poor kids by $7 million this year. Yesterday we heard how the government is attacking poor sen- iors. Today it's poor kids.

How can the minister justify this draconian cut when the Premier's budget for pub- lic affairs has been increased by that very same amount? [1425] Hon. G. Hogg: I assume that the member is refer- ring to the issues with respect to the school-based pro- gramming. I want to point out to the member that there is a reorganization of these figures. We're actually pro- viding funding this year at rates higher than we have in previous years because of the refocus of the pro- gramming that we've been doing.

We've been meeting with parents, with school trustees, with principals, with vice-principals associations, with community ser- vice providers and with teachers. We are developing a program which more accurately addresses and focuses on the needs of the high-risk children. There are 705 schools in this province where there are children coming from families which have over 10 percent of those children on income assistance…. We are now addressing a program which focuses on and addresses the needs of those children in more effective ways than we ever have in the past. Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: Well, a cut is a cut. This government has cut school-based programs to help poor kids by $7 million. Just like yesterday when they refused to tell what's really happening to poor seniors, they refuse to tell exactly what's happening to poor kids today — $7 million less. Over 140,000 kids depend on this funding. They depend on it for hot lunches. They depend on it for counselling. They depend on it for activities. These are at-risk kids who need specialized support and help.

Again to the minister: will the minister ask the Premier to show some compassion and spend a few less bucks on misleading Pharmacare advertising so that poor kids don't have to go to school hungry? Hon. G. Hogg: The auditor general in 1998 did a review of some of these programs and pointed out that, in fact, one of the programs that was provided by the last government was inefficient, ineffective and not focused on the outcomes necessary to assist children. We have done a review, and we've looked at all of the countries and the organizations for economic coop- eration and development.

They've told us that there are three criteria that have to meet an effective program. One is that it's locally focused. A second is that it has the participation of parents, and the third is the com- munity. Those are the important criteria in terms of making sure that a program has some impact on the educational performance of children. We are refocusing these programs so that we do measure and look at those outcomes that we found the international studies suggest must be there. In the past, when the NDP government was in power, there was not a focus on those types of outcomes.

There was not clarity of expectation. We are having a chance now to involve a coordinated, integrated service delivery model that includes our local authorities meeting with school boards so that we can have a coordinated ap- proach which will make a difference for children in their educational performance. Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplementary. J. MacPhail: There isn't one poor kid, one poor fam- ily, one inner-city school or one inner-city organization that supports what this government is doing to these programs.

Every single group, parent and child is be- moaning and decrying the $7 million cut, no matter w h a t t h i s m i n i s t e r l i k e s t o s a y . A s a l w a y s w i t h t h i s government, they find a problem, and what do they do? They don't correct the problem; they cut funding. They penalize the poorest of the province. There are over 700 schools in British Columbia where more than 10 percent of their kids are in families on income assistance, just as the minister said. It's been shown over and over again that school-based funding improves academic achievement for these youngsters.

These programs help support learning. They help stu- dent achievement, parents and teachers. School boards across the province say these programs help. So what does this government do? They cut the program, and they say to every poor kid: "You're going to get less." Does the minister agree that funding is essential, and if funding is so essential, like all of his caucus is saying now, why did he cut the program by $7 million? Hon. G. Hogg: I'd like to point out that in the past, when these programs were funded by the past gov- ernment, there was no rationale for the way the fund- ing went out.

In fact, those school districts that were provided…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer. Hon. G. Hogg: W e h a v e u s e d t h e r e s e a r c h o f D r . Clyde Hertzman to look at how we could actually re- organize this funding so it would have a maximum

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5461 impact to work at and improve the educational per- formance of children. That was not done in the past. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1430] Hon. G. Hogg: For the first time, this government is using evidence-based research to make decisions around how this money should be allocated so it will be far more effective. In the past, I don't know — and no one can find out — how that was done. We are ac- tually improving by moving to evidence-based re- search that will suggest how those should be allocated.

We will see better outcomes because we can measure how these programs are going forward. We can meas- ure them and know we're having the improvements we wanted so that this money will be expended in ways which will have a far better impact than it's ever had in the past. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. AFFILIATION OF B.C. TEACHERS FEDERATION WITH B.C. FEDERATION OF LABOUR K. Krueger: The word today is that approximately 9,900 members of the B.C. Teachers Federation have voted to affiliate all of British Columbia's teachers with the B.C. Federation of Labour.

To many of my constitu- ents, my colleagues and many teachers, this presents a choice between being independent professionals and being trade unionists. My question is to the Minister of Education: what does this mean to the integrity of the B.C. College of Teachers and the issue of whether membership in the BCTF should be mandatory? Hon. C. Clark: I think it's important to point out that while it was a minority of teachers — I think it was about 23 percent of teachers in the province who actu- ally voted to support the affiliation with the B.C. Fed — an election is an election.

Whether or not it has a low turnout, it's still conducted by all accounts as a democ- ratic process. Individual teachers, who I've heard from quite a bit this morning, who don't support this move and may regret the fact that they stayed home and didn't vote are nonetheless bound by the result.

The issue that arises for government is an interest- ing one, because while the BCTF has made no secret of the fact in the last little while that it intends to move to a very aggressive, very partisan and highly political stance — one that includes funding political parties and engaging intimately in taking sides in elections — that is very much at odds with the role of the College of Teachers. T he C o l l e g e o f T e ac he rs i s re q u i re d t o b e an i nd e - pendent, non-partisan, standard-setting organization. The issue, though, is that the College of Teachers' membership on the board is elected.

Fifteen of them are elected in elections conducted by the BCTF. Given that the aims of the two organizations are so irreconcilably at odds, apparently, the government will certainly have to give some consideration to how we might try and resolve the situation. PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS B. Penner: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Earlier this morning the B.C. Citizens for Public Power, a politically charged advocacy group, released a report once again alleging this government is privatizing B.C. Hydro's transmission assets. This group, tied to longtime NDP supporters and the B.C.

Federation of Labour president Jim Sinclair, has consis- tently misrepresented the truth about the B.C. govern- ment's energy policy to the people of this province. Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell British Columbians if the B.C. Citizens for Public Power is fearmongering to promote the political interests of their NDP friends? Or have they simply failed to bother reading the new energy policy for B.C. released last November and available on the ministry's website? Hon. R.

Neufeld: To the member: I want to assure him and all British Columbians — a n d i f s o m e o f t h e NDP are listening, I want to assure them too — that B.C. Hydro is not for sale. B.C. Hydro and all its core assets are a great benefit for British Columbia and will stay publicly owned in this province as long as this government is in place. The fearmongering that con- tinues to go on from individuals is unfair. It's unfair to the people of British Columbia, and it's untrue. Actually, what you have to do is go back in history a little bit, so I went back to some minutes of B.C. Hydro.

Of course, regional transmission organizations have been talked about for quite a long time — in fact, back to 1994, when B.C. Hydro started talking about them. In 1994 there was that real good NDP-supported group on the board: Angela Schira, Marjorie Griffin Cohen and Sharon Manson Singer. When it came to vote… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Wrap it up, please. Hon. R. Neufeld: …the only one that would vote no was Angela Schira — that NDPer who at least stood up for what she thought. Who didn't stand up were Marjorie Griffin Cohen and Sharon Manson Singer, who abstained… Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Hon. R. Neufeld: …from voting and today try to fearmonger. Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

5462 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 Hon. R. Neufeld: That's unacceptable and should be…. Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. [1435] AVAILABILITY OF FOSTER CARE FOR YOUTH J. MacPhail: Yesterday seniors; today poor kids. Not only is it a group of poor kids who go to inner-city schools that they're cutting funding for, the govern- ment is now cutting funding for the poorest and most vulnerable kids in B.C. When they become teenagers, this Liberal government is making life no easier for them.

According to news reports, some 15-year-olds who turn up at the Ministry of Children and Family Devel- opment are being sent away to collect welfare rather than being placed in foster care. The ministry started diverting youths as young as 15 to welfare offices six months ago, the same time as there was a dramatic increase in the number of street youth. Can the Minister of Children and Family Develop- ment, the man who is supposed to be responsible for protecting vulnerable children, explain why foster care advocates are saying that kids are being denied the care they need and thrown onto the welfare rolls? Hon.

G. Hogg: I can assure you that this govern- ment and this province's primary responsibility is en- suring the safe care and protection of all children in this province. I can further assure you that there have been no changes to the criteria in terms of addressing that. We have more social workers now working in protection in this province than we've had before. We don't have the shortages that we've had in the north in the past. We are now equipped with social workers at full complement, and we have not changed the criteria for ensuring….

If children are coming forward in need of protection and support, then that protection and support is found for those children. MARIJUANA GROW OPERATIONS AND ELECTRICITY THEFT D. Hayer: My question is to the Solicitor General. Lately it is difficult to watch the evening news without seeing a story about another marijuana grow operation being discovered. The growers are increasingly moving to the family-oriented neighbourhoods to conduct their operations. My constituents are concerned about this illegal activity in their neighbourhood and the related issues that it brings along with it.

Can the Solicitor General please tell us what is being done to combat marijuana grow ops in our communities? It is widely known that marijuana grow ops gener- ally use a large amount of electricity. In many cases, the criminals running the grow ops steal power in or- der to avoid large hydro bills. Can the minister tell us what is being done to crack down on the illegal prac- tice of electricity theft with regard to marijuana grow ops? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the member is right. Grow ops are an increasing, insidious problem in our society. They are the base of organized crime in British Columbia.

They fund the illegal gun trade. They fund the cocaine. They fund the methamphetamine labs. As a mat- ter of fact, they are responsible for in excess of 60 homi- cides that we are presently investigating in the province. They are an insidious problem. What do we do? Our study shows that 82 percent of the people that are charged with marijuana grow ops in British Co- lumbia do not receive either a punitive fine or a jail sentence. In Washington State, south of us, the mini- mum sentence on first offence is three months in jail.

In Whatcom County, south of the Fraser Valley, they will deal with maybe a handful of grow ops this year. In British Columbia we will deal with thousands of grow ops in the Fraser Valley. We need help. We need help from our justice system. We need help from our federal prosecutors. We need help from our communities to raise this issue so that we can deal with it.

That's why we're g o i n g t o h a v e a d i a l o g u e o n c r i m e , b e c a u s e w e a r e going to raise the bar so people start to understand how we're going to fight crime in the future in Brit- ish Columbia. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: By agreement between the opposi- tion and the government, what we'll do is call commit- tee stage of the Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003. Once that bill is complete, we'll have a 15-minute recess.

I call committee stage debate on the Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003. [1440] Committee of the Whole House UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:41 p.m. Sections 1 to 26 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5463 The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Bill 15, Unclaimed Property Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Mr. Speaker: The House will now recess for 15 min- utes. We'll ring the division bells and reconvene at 3 p.m. The House recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 3:03 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Standing Order 81 Motion Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair will now hear arguments on the motion put forward by the Min- ister of Labour under standing order 81. J.

MacPhail: J u s t t o c l a r i f y , w e r e t h e M i n i s t e r o f Labour's comments during first reading the argument the government made for standing order 81? Mr. Speaker: I believe so, but other speakers may wish to be heard. J. MacPhail: Well, I would rather reply to what the government's argument is. That's all. Mr. Speaker: Well, it is the wish of the Chair to hear all arguments, pro and con, and we will not cut debate off. You can proceed, and you will have an op- portunity to speak again. J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's fine. Thank you very much for that.

I've had an opportunity to examine the legislation, and I make the following arguments about standing order 81. For those who are not familiar with the toings and froings of parliamentary procedure that guide us in this legislation and which are extremely important in the democratic process, standing order 81 says this: "Every Bill shall receive three readings, on different days, prior to being passed. After the second reading it shall be or- dered for committal on a subsequent day.

On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a Bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day." [1505] The British Columbia government has asked that this bill, Bill 21, University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act, be considered as an urgent — I as- sume urgent or extraordinary — bill and therefore must be passed through all three stages today. There will be arguments made that I'm not familiar with by the government. I hope to have a chance to respond to those arguments. It's interesting to note that the government actually named this bill, Bill 21.

We had another Bill 21 back in 1996, brought in by a previous government of which I was part. That bill was called the Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act. It's interesting because the government of the day argued that the legislation was extraordinary and that the three stages of the bill needed to be passed within one day. The reason why I say it's interesting to note the same num- bered title is because the Speaker of the day ruled that there were not extraordinary circumstances that would allow the bill to pass through all three readings.

I want to begin by making reference to that debate. I'd be happy to give anybody in the House a copy of this debate. It's straight from Hansard. The first speaker is the now Minister of…. Well, first of all, it was the Minister of Finance of the day who introduced the leg- islation. Then the Opposition House Leader of the day, now the Minister of Finance, replied to that, arguing that…. Sorry.

It was quite an interesting debate, and there was a lot of extraneous wrangling, including an order by the Speaker that I lower my voice, which was the first time I'd heard that, and I don't want to ever have to face that again. Indeed, there was a lot of procedural wrangling, but then there was a point made by the member for Okanagan-Vernon of the day, who said: "As I under- stand

section 81, it deals with matters of an emergency nature. If you look closely at the bill, you find that the emergency nature is specified in one particular case; but it extends the authority of the cabinet for some time to deal with a number of other issues that are not at this time of an emergency nature —

whereas if the bill handled only the difficulty of the emergency that is imminent, it would probably be appropriate under

section 81. But the way the bill is worded, it's another piece of legislation that gives the cabinet extended powers in anticipation of emergencies…." In fact, that was the nub of the argument put to the Speaker, and the Speaker absorbed that argument and actually used that as the point to suggest that the legis- lation was not of an extraordinary or emergency na- ture. In fact, the now Minister of Finance, then Opposi- tion House Leader, went on to say: "The point of order has been raised by the member for Okanagan-Vernon that in his opinion

section 81 doesn't apply, given the nature of the bill in itself. I guess the next step is a rul- ing from yourself on whether or not that is the case.

To make this a little easier, because there are concerns, now that we have the bill, as to what the contents are and its application under standing order 81…." My apologies — it was just the Opposition House Leader asking for a recess, which he got. [1510] Anyway, then we recessed and came back, and the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast made an argument to say that the bargaining had gone on, and the House hadn't sat during any of that time — had not been recalled — and that there was absolutely nothing that had changed that would make it of an emergency nature.

In fact, he said: "This government, if it had con- cern over this issue, has had ample opportunity to re- call this Legislature, put in place this piece of legisla- tion and have adequate notice and debate on this mat- ter. It is an absolute outrage to the process of democ-

5464 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 racy," said the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, "that we would recall this Legislative Assembly on a Friday morning and, without prior notice — cer- tainly to this member and our party — introduce this bill and expect to ram it through in one day, with the ramifications it may have. It is an absolute outrage to our democratic process." The government then goes on to make its argument that it wasn't of an urgent nature.

In fact, I entered the debate at the time to suggest that Surrey was on strike at the time, that that was of an urgent nature and also that the union had received no indication from the em- ployer that there was any settlement whatsoever. Fi- nally, halfway through the debate, the Opposition House Leader said: "I'm a little shocked, quite frankly. If we want to talk about urgent, hon.

Speaker — and I think that's the matter for discussion right now — the last time this House legislated somebody back to work was in 1993, and it was by this government." At that time in the discussion about urgency, after we had gone through some 12 hours of debate in this House, after six weeks of strikes around this province and two million student-days lost in this province, I remember that this government finally started to care about students just slightly a bit more than they did about the unions.

The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain stood up in this House at midnight — it was a different Vancouver–Little Mountain member — and said how terrible it was that the opposition didn't real- ize the urgency of getting this bill through. He then goes on to talk about how there was ample opportunity for legislation to come forward for them to make their point. Then he goes on to say: "I'm making a p o i n t . W e h a v e a n u r g e n t c r i s i s i n S u r r e y . W e h a d i t last week; we had it two weeks ago.

But it's come back again because they haven't dealt with it, so we've got another crisis in Surrey. But with this bill, once it goes through and looks at it, one realizes it's not just for Surrey." The Speaker then absorbed all those argu- ments and ruled that the bill was wide-ranging and not specific in its nature.

In fact, I would argue that Bill 21, while trying to be downplayed by the Minister of Labour both in his talk with the news media after him tabling the legislation and in this House, failed to point out that in the way the definition exists of who this bill applies to, it's not just dealing with people who are on strike. It's not even just dealing with people who have served strike notice. Let me give the definition of the act. The definition is of trade unions, and it means…. In

section 1, "Definitions," the definition of trade unions is: "(a), the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2278" — which is the administrative section, who have served strike notice; "(

b) the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2950" — the teaching assistants who are on strike, and this is the key part, Mr. Speaker; "(

c) any other trade union representing employees of the employer that is designated by regulation." We have a situation now where this bill is going beyond application to anyone who is on campus, so it much extends beyond the emergency — whatever the government might define as emergency or extraordi- nary situation.

The act is wide-ranging in that it applies to people who may not even be at the bargaining table, who may not even have served any strike notice, who may be doing nothing other than simply working. [1515] My first point is that this legislation is of the same nature in terms of its broad application, beyond any argument the government could make of there being an urgent or extraordinary application, and that the Speaker in 1996, examining the same such language, ruled that indeed the legislation did not qualify for being considered urgent or extraordinary because of its application beyond anything that was occurring at the moment in terms of job action.

That's the first point. The second point I would make is that, just as the Opposition House Leader said back in 1996, this situa- tion has been going on for not weeks but months. The collective bargaining breakdown has occurred for months. Bargaining itself was attempted to be started even before the collective agreement expired. The col- lective agreement expired August 30, 2002. The teach- ing assistants of one local actually invited the employer to the bargaining table before the collective agreement expired, and the employer refused to do that.

Eventu- ally the union had to go to the Labour Relations Board and bring forward a charge of bargaining in bad faith. If this government of the day had been the least bit interested in the welfare of students, it would have been at that point to intervene — when this matter was before the Labour Relations Board — about a break- down in bargaining. Yesterday the Labour Relations Board examined the effects of job action at UBC, and they came to the conclusion….

This is an independent administrative tribunal that examined an application brought forward by the employer about the ill effects on students of job action, and the Labour Relations Board said they're not going to interfere. The Labour Relations Board has full authority to judge and make a ruling on the ill effects of collective bargaining on education, on student out- come. In fact, the Labour Relations Board in the past has ruled that job action in the education sector that affects student outcome cannot continue.

The Labour Relations Board has made a ruling that where grade 12 students facing examinations are affected in a negative way by job action, the LRB has the right — and has exercised that right — to order people back to work or declare them an essential service. Yesterday the LRB…. I'm sorry. I think it was yes- terday. It could have been Monday or Tuesday. It was one of those two days that the Labour Relations Board heard this matter and came to the conclusion that they would not interfere with the job action at UBC. Again, at no time did this Liberal government interfere in the Labour Relations Board matter.

I also note that the basis upon which the Minister of Labour made his case — that this was an extraordinary urgent matter, that 23,000 students are negatively af- fected and that their education outcomes would be negatively affected by this job action…. In fact, there's

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5465 no evidence whatsoever that 23,000 students are af- fected by it. In fact, the employer — UBC — when asked to present that evidence at the LRB earlier this week, could not in any way demonstrate the ill effects on any given number of students. The reason for this was that the job action is of such a nature that, in fact, there's only been a very short period of time — less than a day — in which more than one building at the campus is affected at one time.

After that one action where more than one building was affected, the teach- ing assistants reverted to, at most, affecting one build- ing for a specific period of time. [1520] I a l s o w a n t t o m a k e o n e r e m a r k i n m y o p e n i n g comments about how extraordinary and how urgent this is. Did the government wake up this morning and say: "Oh my God. How could this have happened? We had no idea this could have happened"? How could the government not have known the difficulties of collec- tive bargaining at universities?

How could they not have understood there was going to be difficult bar- gaining occurring at the universities? I'm going to choose my words carefully here, be- cause this issue is so important. I don't want to get into an argument with anybody on the government side about whether funding was increased or decreased. Let me just say this. Every single university and college itself has acknowledged that its funding is frozen and that there are implications for frozen funding with the requirement to increase access and with increased costs. There isn't one institution that has not put for- ward that statement itself.

At a minimum, the House will acknowledge that. I, of course, would like to go much further in suggesting that's the best spin anyone could put on funding. Nevertheless, I will leave it at that — at what the post-secondary institutions them- selves have described. How could the government not have known there was going to be a bargaining crunch? Clearly, by tacit approval they accepted that. By tacit approval of the funding levels, they also tacitly accepted that bargain- ing was going to be difficult and challenging. Yet until now the right to strike, under most circumstances, pre- vails.

The government also — I heard it over and over from the Minister of Advanced Education — said it's up to the individual institutions to raise tuitions or to set their tuitions. So how could the government not have known tuition rises would become a bargaining issue with teaching assistants? It's of their own creation that this matter is here today. It's not urgent; it's not extraordinary. It is trou- bling — the collective bargaining that's occurring at UBC. It's very troubling. We have a situation now….

Well, whenever we debate second reading, I'll get into those details about the circumstances that exist in terms of the troubling nature of collective bargaining — how this government has pitted administration against stu- dents in a way that is not of the administration's mak- ing but of this government's making. I will conclude my second argument in my initial comments by saying that instead of arguing that this is urgent and extraordinary, I would say exactly the op- posite. This kind of collective bargaining situation and strike action that is happening at UBC is exactly what the government has had in mind.

It is exactly the strat- egy of this government to have a confrontation at UBC, and perhaps at other universities, of this nature. When they froze funding and allowed tuition to increase, in fact, the government was well aware that this is the kind of struggle that would happen. So, far from it being urgent or extraordinary, it is by design. It would be a terrible miscarriage of parliamen- tary procedure to suggest in any way that these cir- cumstances are extraordinary or urgent. Hon. G.

Collins: I wish to address some of the comments made by the member opposite with regard to the request of government to have this bill move through all three stages today under standing order 81. I'll try and deal with them perhaps not in the same chronological order as the member opposite but in a different order. [1525] First of all, this isn't just about the unions and the em- ployer. That will be contained within the legislation itself. The reason for the urgency is the impact on students. It is the impact on the public and the public interest that drives the urgency of this matter.

There are some 3,500 students across the campus at UBC, where the teaching assistants normally actually teach the courses. They have not been taught now for two and a half or almost three weeks. There are over 20,000 students who would normally have the services of the teaching assistants in their labs and seminars, etc., and they have been unable to have access to those classes as well. That is part of it. There is also the fact that the administrative union, the clerical union, has gone on strike as well, and that is impacting the students' access to the libraries. All of that is important for this reason.

It's final exams for these students for their year's worth of investment in time, energy and finances in this education year. It comes down to a process that starts on April 1, which is the exam period. The exams start April 1. There will be term papers that are probably currently due, which will certainly continue to be due. Students are unable to receive the course instruction they require and to do the labs they require. They are unable to access the library and the documents they need in an effort to complete their courses. This has become very urgent, and in fact, each day it is becoming more urgent.

Today we are nearing a point where we are advised by the university that the students' whole school year is now becoming at risk. That is the urgency. The bar- gaining that's happened before and whether it's worked or not, the bargaining mandate of government, the process of bargaining, who's right and who's wrong, who's got a good offer on the table, who doesn't have a good offer on the table…. That is a process for debate perhaps in legislation but probably more ap- propriately at the bargaining table. What we're here today to try to deal with is a piece of legislation that will order those parties back to the

5466 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 table where they can now, with the assistance of a me- diator, try to engage in constructive bargaining and complete a collective agreement. In the intervening period they would also return to work, and students would return to class and therefore not forfeit an entire year's worth of work, energy and financial investment in their university education. That's what drives the urgency. It is the impact on the students and the need now for government, having been advised that those students' education is at risk, to step in and deal with that.

If I can deal with a couple of the items that the mem- ber opposite raised about the impact on students. She mentioned the Labour Relations Board hearings that happened last week. That was with regard to the loca- tion of pickets, and the location of pickets being in one building or another. Should they be at the entrance of the campus so that there's some predictability, and stu- dents would have to cross one picket line if that's what they chose to do?

The issue that the Labour Relations Board dealt with did not deal with whether or not they were getting access to their classes or whether TAs were actually teaching them, or whether or not there was a picket in front. The issue was where the location of the picketing was. I think that's an important distinction. I want to focus, if I can for a moment, on the com- ments of the member opposite with regard to the de- bate that took place in this House on April 26, 1996. I remember that debate very well, because the legislation that was introduced to the House had two components, really.

There was, at that time, a longstanding strike that was taking place in Surrey. Certainly, this was on a Friday that this debate took place, so the House was being asked to deal with legislation on Friday in order to ensure that Surrey was resolved — and I'll deal with that part of the act first — so that the students in Surrey could get back to school. Well, they weren't going to be going to school on Saturday. They weren't going to be going to school on Sunday. They were going to be go- ing to school, hopefully, on the Monday. [1530] There was more to that act than what was pre- sented at the time.

The Speaker can certainly go back and look at the content of the legislation that was in- troduced at that time. Certainly, the decision of Speaker Barnes at the time leads one to go and actually look at the legislation, because the decision on April 26, 1996, from Emery Barnes goes as follows: "…on the matter of an emergency which was raised this morning, I have considered with very great care all of the submissions made by all hon. members. I accept that there may indeed be a most serious situation in Surrey.

I feel, however, that the bill in its present form goes well beyond the situation in Surrey and does not satisfy the stringent guidelines — and I must emphasize 'stringent guidelines' — applicable to standing order 81 to permit this bill to proceed through all stages on this day, and therefore it fails." Mr. Speaker, that's important, because if you go and look at the debate and you look at the bill that was presented to the House, not only did it deal with Sur- rey students, but it dealt…. It was called, if I remember correctly, the Education and Health Collective Bargain- ing Assistance Act.

Not only was it not just Surrey, it was not just education, but it was also health care. Perhaps I can remind members of this House of the significance of the day, April 26, 1996, because it was the intent of the government at that time to drop the writ and go to the polls on the Monday. They wanted this legislation through the House and passed — all three stages — on the Friday so they could start their campaign on the Saturday and Sunday and draw up the writ on Monday. What happened at the time, with the rejection of the request of the government for standing order 81, was that the House sat on the Friday.

It then did second reading on Saturday and committee stage on Sunday. On Monday morning the writ was dropped, and we were into an election. The motivation by government to pass that legislation and do it in an urgent way was suspect at the time. Subsequently, I think, it was proven to have other motives — if I can put it that way. Mr. Speaker, that is an important issue. I t i s i m p o r t a n t a l s o t o g o b a c k a n d l o o k a t t h e words of Speaker Barnes at the time, because he makes reference to the broad-ranging nature of the bill.

There was another part of that bill, aside from Surrey, that allowed for the government, by that legislation — I think it was by regulation by the order of the Minister of Labour — to order the cessation of any job action in the education or the health care sectors for a period of time, which would have allowed the government to get through the election period. That act was very broad- ranging. It was collective bargaining across the educa- tion sector, across the health care sector, and I think Speaker Barnes appropriately rejected the request for an exemption under standing order 81.

If I can look at another example, if I may. On April 2, 2000, Speaker Hartley made a decision with regard to an attempt by the government at that time to pass a bill to deal with collective bargaining in Surrey again. The legislation that the government brought forward at that time…. Sorry, I think I have the wrong location. There was a piece of legislation which was brought to the House in April 2000, which was narrowly focused to one area, and the Speaker actually made a ruling that, in fact, it should proceed through all three stages in one day. That was because of the impact on those students.

It was not a broad-ranging piece of legisla- tion. It was a relatively narrow piece of legislation deal- ing with the situation at hand. Now the question arises as to whether or not the piece of legislation before us is a narrow piece of legis- lation or a broad piece of legislation. I use the example quoted by the member opposite, Speaker Barnes's rul- ing in 1996, and compare it to the piece of legislation that we have before us.

The legislation in 1996, as I mentioned, dealt not only with the school strike in Sur- rey but with any school strike anywhere in the prov- ince and any health care strike anywhere in the prov- ince — real or perceived or possible in the future. Bill 21 that's before us has a couple of provisions. The one point I want to make, and the one

section of

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5467 the bill that I want to point out to the members and to the Speaker, is in the

definitions section. It is the defini- tion of "employer." The employer is not any university or any college or any school district or any health au- thority or any hospital. It is restricted to the University of British Columbia. The reason for that is that the stu- dents who are being impacted by this strike are the students at the University of British Columbia. This legislation, and indeed the call for standing order 81 exemption for this legislation, is driven by the needs of those students at the University of British Columbia and the impacts on them. [1535] In another section,

section 2 following, the bill talks about not only those unions and bargaining units that are currently striking but also those that might strike or those that have been on a strike but may not have the direct impact that perhaps the TAs have. The legisla- tion and the call for the urgency are determined by the urgent need of the students and the public interest. It's not directly to do with the process or the stages of process for other negotiations that may be taking place. That is a matter of debate for the bill itself. The issue of the urgency is the impact on those students.

For example, if the legislation were to be passed through the House today — or even, for that matter, in three days' time — and the students were back in class and the teachers or the TAs and the clerical workers were back at work, there would be nothing stopping another labour dispute, at that very narrowly defined employer of the University of British Columbia, from occurring, which might have exactly the same or worse impacts upon those very same students. The issue isn't the unions; the issue is the impact on the students.

That is the public interest that's driving the urgency that requires this legislation to pass through all three stages today. With the narrow parameters that are around the

definitions in the act, I think one can compare this leg- islation with the previous Bill 21 from 1996 that the member refers to, which was the Education and Health Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

One can compare those two pieces of legislation, note the broad scope of the legislation in 1996 and the reference of Speaker Barnes to the nature of that bill and the reasons the standing order 81 exemption request failed, and then look at the narrow provisions of this Bill 21 to that workplace and those students who are impacted and see that in fact this legislation does qualify under standing order 81, as has been done on previous occa- sions. The one I mentioned, which I think is a good example, is the decision by Speaker Hartley on April 2, 2000.

With that, I think one can look at the rulings, the legislation and the debate and can determine quite clearly that this bill is in the interests of the students who are affected by it. As well, the urgency impacts those students directly. It's time we got them back into their classrooms so they can complete their school year. They have about two and a bit weeks left, and it's very urgent that they get back, conclude their studies, finish their exams and put this school year behind them, be- cause it's very much at risk. J. MacPhail: My comments in reply will be brief.

The G o v e r n m e n t H o u s e L e a d e r m a k e s , a s I c a n t e l l , t h r e e arguments: that public interest is served by this; that exams are approaching; and that the university, being the employer, has stated that the school year is at risk. To address the issue of public interest, it is a bit galling to hear that this government has the public interest in mind, when it comes to advanced education or the inter- e s t s o f s t u d e n t s .

F a r b e i t f r o m u s t o b e f o o l e d b y t h a t headline in the Vancouver Sun this morning, which says how well British Columbia is doing in graduating people from college. All of that was in the 1990s, due to good, excellent education policy then — all of which has ground to a halt in 2001 with the election of this government. There's lack of appropriate funding. There are increases in tuition. There's increase in debt load, so it's a bit galling… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1540] J. MacPhail: …to hear that this government has the public interest in mind at all in relation to this bill.

The Minister of Finance, the Government House Leader, suggests that somehow the LRB matter — the decision of earlier this week — is irrelevant. In fact, when the LRB was listening to the effects of picketing, they made exactly the arguments about the ill effects of building-by-building picketing. They made the argu- ments about the ill effects that they claimed building-by- building picketing would have on campus. They judged at the time….

They ruled in their silence that they could not determine ill effects, because as I said earlier, it is absolutely within the purview of the LRB to the deter- mine ill effects of picketing on student outcome. They've made that ruling before. They did it in terms of grade 12 examinations in the K-to-12 system. It was exactly on point that the Labour Relations Board examined that issue and came to the conclusion not to interfere. My comments about the university. Let's be clear. It's not the university; it's the employer making this argument, which the government has bought com- pletely.

The employer says the school year is at risk, and therefore the situation is urgent or extraordinary. In fact, this bill exacerbates the impending exam

schedule for this reason and puts it at risk. The bill ex- pires March 31. Classes continue until April 9, and the examination

schedule starts the week after that. If anything, this legislation puts the whole…. The fact that it expires, that there's no mediation order, that there's no return to bargaining ordered, that exactly all there is, is an IIC…. There's an IIC. Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, there is. J. MacPhail: I heard the Minister of Labour say: "Yes, there is." There's an industrial inquiry commis-

5468 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 sioner that has no settlement powers. There's no ability to make a determination or impose a determination. This bill, if anything, moves the time line, in fact, to put the examination

schedule more at risk, which goes back to my point in my argument. It is by design that this government has set up the bargaining structure and brought in this legislation to indeed, I would say, actually make the situation at the beginning of April urgent and extraordinary in a sense that the public would be pushed to such a determination to say: "Oh yes. This cannot continue if strikes resume at that point or job action resumes." I know, Mr. Speaker, you have your work cut out for you. Regardless of what the…. Not regardless — I don't mean that. My apologies.

In response to the Gov- ernment House Leader's argument about how you must differentiate this Bill 21 from the 1996 Bill 21, the principle is the same. An application of legislation broader than the circumstances that exist as we speak makes the bill not of an urgent or extraordinary nature. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, because of the impor- tance of this decision and this motion, I will hear fur- ther arguments, but I would ask speakers to keep their comments brief and try not to repeat everything that has been said here. Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I'll take your guidance on that.

Just to point out a little bit more in respect to the urgency, the teaching assistants — that's the CUPE Local 2278 — are actually responsible for approxi- mately 40 percent of the teaching load at UBC. That means for this last…. I think it was February 12 when, in fact, they went onto the picket lines. That's had a substantive impact on the students that have not been receiving the tutorials, marking of exams, laboratories, grade assignments and essays.

These education ser- vices to this point for that period of time have been withdrawn. [1545] We've mentioned the aspect that we are very close to the end of the year in regard to the teaching. The other aspect that the Leader of the Opposition had brought out was that there is, in fact…. She didn't men- tion this. I'd like to clarify that. There is within this bill a determination that the parties will return to the table within 72 hours of this bill being passed. We are work- ing to assist in the facilitation of a negotiated settle- ment. We've put that time limit of sunset of March 31.

I've required that my Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour will be the one who will be facilitating these discussions, and we are hopeful that these discussions will, of course, result in a resolution. With those two points, the matter itself is one of an urgent nature, and it is, as the House Leader has men- tioned, very focused and specific to the resolution of this dispute. Hon. G. Collins: I have one other late-breaking piece of information which I wish to make you aware of in your deliberations, Mr. Speaker There's an e-mail from CUPE 2950 to its membership. The subject is: "Urgent.

Please read and pass to CUPE 2950 members." Importance: high. "Effective immediately, we are on full strike. Please collect your personal belongings and leave your office immediately. All members are to go to gate 1 at Westbrook, the University Boulevard, for a protest rally." Mr. Speaker, I just think that gives an indication of the kind of escalation that not only has been happening but is currently happening. That was sent at 2:42 p.m. today. Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to the debate. It is a complex issue.

I will retire forthwith to peruse all of the arguments and consider everything that's been said. I want to make members aware that I am very much aware of previous rulings by Speaker Barnes and Speaker Hartley and others, and I will take those into consideration. Is it the wish of the House to continue business, or shall we recess until we come back with a ruling? Gov- ernment House Leader? Hon. G. Collins: I would prefer at this point that we recess.

I will check with the Minister of Education, whose estimates are next on the agenda, to see if she has staff available; and if so, perhaps we could recon- vene when she's available. Mr. Speaker: We will recess now for a short time. I can't put an exact time on it, but it's while we consider all arguments and deliberate over this important rul- ing. Thank you. We're in recess for a short period. We'll ring the division bells to call the members back. The House recessed from 3:48 p.m. to 4:49 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Standing Order 81 Motion (Speaker's Ruling) Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the question before me is whether, under standing order 81, an urgent or extraordinary occasion exists wherein Bill 21, intituled University of British Columbia Services Continuation Act, may be advanced through more than one stage in one day. I have examined the bill and listened to the arguments which were ably presented by both sides of the House. The bill deals with the labour situation at one insti- tution only — namely, the University of British Co- lumbia.

It is limited in effect to the period from the present to the end of the month — namely, 19 days — at which time it expires. [1650] The Government House Leader states that students' exams are scheduled to commence in 20 days and that

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5469 a strike will have a direct impact on the academic year of a large number of students. In their arguments, both House Leaders dealt with Speaker Barnes's ruling of April 26, 1996, wherein he ruled that standing order 81 would not be applied where a bill was too broad in scope. The bill in that case, Education and Health Col- lective Bargaining Assistance Act, extended beyond the scope of a labour dispute involving the Surrey school district. The Opposition House Leader argued that this bill is too broad and, in particular, that the definition of "trade union" in

section 1 allows the government to designate a union by regulation. It is my view that the definition of trade union must be read in the light of the definition of "employer" in

section 1, which is limited to the University of British Columbia. It is my view that the limitation of the scope and duration of the bill at hand distinguishes it from the bill considered by Speaker Barnes. I am also of the view that the actions with which the bill is concerned will have an immediate and detrimental effect on the academic year of a large number of students. Accordingly, I am of the view that the case has been made out for application of standing order 81 so that Bill 21 may advance through all stages. Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SERVICES CONTINUATION ACT Hon. G. Bruce: I move that Bill 21 be read a second time. A s I s t at e d i n f i rs t r e ad i ng , i t i s o u t o f c o nc e r n f o r the UBC students that I've introduced Bill 21. Negotia- tions at UBC began more than one year ago. As Minis- ter of Labour, I want to see free collective bargaining work.

However, when negotiations break down and an impasse results, it is my responsibility to step in, and I have a responsibility to do so in a measured and rea- sonable manner that encourages the parties to also re- spond reasonably. To that end, before I took these steps, I in fact met with both parties for approximately three hours on Monday to try and ascertain where these negotiations were at and how one could best help in bringing the parties together and reach a negotiated settlement.

The legislation will ensure that during any cooling-off pe- riod or periods prescribed under this act, every em- ployee must resume his or her duties and work sched- ule of employment with the employer. Any strike, declaration of a strike, authorization of a strike or direction to go on strike given before or dur- ing the cooling-off period is a breach of this legislation. Officers or representatives of trade unions must not in any way impede, prevent or attempt to impede or pre- vent any persons from returning to his or her duties.

Likewise, an employer must not seek to prevent any person from continuing or resuming his or her duties. An employer must also not discharge or discipline a person because they were locked out or on strike be- fore this act came into force. I've directed that within 72 hours of this act coming into force, the trade unions and the employer, UBC, must recommence good-faith collective bargaining and must make every reasonable effort to conclude a collec- tive agreement.

To assist the parties, I will be appoint- ing my assistant deputy minister, Richard Longpre, as an industrial inquiry commissioner under the Labour Code. His job will be to facilitate discussions and to report to me on the progress of these negotiations. The act calls for an extension of the last collective agreements to remain in force between UBC and its striking teaching assistants and support and library staff until such time as collective agreements are concluded or until the act is no longer in force. This bill will expire on March 31.

As I said in my first reading, I hope the parties will use this time wisely. With good faith by both parties and with the good offices of my assistant deputy minis- ter, I am hopeful we can reach a negotiated settlement during the time that has been allotted. I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered…. Actually, I'll leave that. [1655] Mr. Speaker: We're at second reading stage of Bill 21. J. MacPhail: I eagerly await the comments of every single Liberal MLA to see whether or not they actually care about what's going on here. We are debating in one day….

This government is ramming through legis- lation to once again take away the right of workers to strike. There's no other way to read this legislation. This Liberal government, first of all, sets up circum- stances that pits a public sector administration against its workers because the government has so hamstrung the administration through funding cuts. I'll be anxious to see how every Liberal MLA in this House stands up and defends the actions of their government. I can hardly wait to hear the arguments they can make in defence of this legislation.

I think this is the fourth time — I could be wrong; it could be the fifth time — in 21 months that this Liberal government has used its overwhelming majority to take away collective bargaining rights from working people. It's the fourth or fifth time. It is with unprece- dented frequency that this government has used this kind of legislation. I did a quick search in preparation for this to see what other Canadian jurisdiction at any time in history has legislated workers back four times.

I just did a search for four times, not five times, across Canada in a period of 21 months, and you can't find a jurisdiction that in one parliamentary term has ever legislated back workers that frequently — ever. We're only halfway through this government's mandate, and they — this Liberal government — have set a record for imposing draconian legislation on working people. That's if you take into account Mike

5470 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 Harris. That's if you take into account the Thatcher days in Saskatchewan. That's if you take into account the Tory days in Manitoba. It's if you take into account the Duplessis days of Quebec. Never before has a gov- ernment used this draconian legislation as frequently as this government. My gosh, I guess we're on the way into a Guinness Book of World Records by the time this term is finished. Let's examine exactly what this legislation is about.

In fact, I fully understand the embarrassment of this government that they somehow have to accuse any- body who is against this legislation that they somehow don't care about the university. Well, we'll get to what university presidents have said about this government. Interjections. J. MacPhail: I think they had better just stop their heckling, because we will be reading into the record what university presidents think about this government. An Hon. Member: Oh my. J. MacPhail: Exactly. The government likes to think it takes an approach that actually helps the employer all the time.

Well, we'll get to what this employer thinks about this gov- ernment and their commitment to advanced education. I take great pride in standing up here on behalf of working people as probably — I'm not going to say for sure, but probably — the only MLA at this point, in the absence of my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who cares about working people and their rights to collective bargaining. Hon. R. Neufeld: Go home. J. MacPhail: Pardon me? Mr. Speaker… Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1700] J.

MacPhail: …I don't mind heckling, but the kind of heckling from the Minister of Energy is just down- right rude when he suggests that I should go home. Maybe the public should hear this. I'm the only person here to stand up to the draconian legislation of this government, and the Minister of Energy and Mines suggests I should go home. I guess that would clear the path. I guess that would clear the path for everything this government would like to do on its own, without scrutiny, in secrecy. I'm sure that would make the Min- ister of Energy and Mines as happy as anything. He could then privatize B.C.

Hydro without any scrutiny. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us return to Bill 21. J. MacPhail: I ' m h a p p y t o b e t h e o n l y p e r s o n t o hold this government to account, but it is outrageous. I say this to every member of the B.C. public. They are represented by a government that suggests that the only person who will hold this government to account should go home. That's exactly what he just said — exactly. But we will get to the debate about how the univer- sities actually think about this government.

I stand with pride to defend working people in this province who are under attack each and every day by this gov- ernment. Let's go through how they're under attack. We have a piece of legislation that the Minister of Labour tries to very quietly present, but he is ex- tremely cynical in his presentation to say: "Gosh, we tried everything. We just tried everything, and now we have to intervene." I had a three-hour meeting with the parties. It will be interesting to have put on the record the contents of what that three-hour meeting was actually about, and we will do that at committee stage.

But why has this dilemma, this bargaining situation, come as a surprise to this government? It is of their very own making that the employer and the unions find themselves with ir- reconcilable differences. It was this government that deregulated tuition. It was this government that said to the universities: "If you want any extra money, you've got to raise it your- self.

You can increase tuition." It was this government that said: "Universities, you're on your own in terms of getting any more money." In fact, I will go through right now about how this Liberal government has completely cut any adequate funding to any post- secondary institutions. That cut in funding has given rise to this labour dispute. Let me just go through some of those figures. The Ministry of Advanced Education's budget was frozen at $1.899 billion in the year '02-03. That was the fund- ing that they received in '01-02. Then this government came in and froze it at that level.

It will stay at that level until right through the year '04-05. Then, in the year '05-06, the funding will increase to $1.929 billion — an increase of $30 million. It's such an insignificant increase. It's got a whole bunch of zeroes to the right of the decimal point to even determine what that increase is, and that's an increase after the budget has been fro- zen from '01-02. That's '01-02, '02-03, '03-04 and '04-05 — four years of exactly the same funding.

Then they get a bit of a little reprieve in the fifth year, getting $30 million across a budget of almost $2 billion. [1705] We have institutions that have all sorts of pressures on them — pressures that come from collective bar- gaining…. But I know this government doesn't care about working people's wages, so that's just one pres- sure. This government couldn't care a whit about com- pensation for working people. It's only the very wealthy that they care about and the corporations, and that's demonstrated in their budget.

But there are other pressures on post-secondary institutions, and let's look at those pressures. Although the budget for the entire ministry is fro- zen for five years, the funding provided to the educa-

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5471 tional institutions themselves will actually decline. That funding to the institutions declines for the next two years. In the '02-03 budget year the funding was $1.4 billion — $1.407 billion. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. When you're dealing with these large numbers, it's important to go to those decimal points. In the year '03- 04 that funding will be $1.401 billion. In '04-05 that funding will be $1.379 billion. That's a decline in fund- ing.

While all of the other cost pressures are going up, this government is cutting the funding to the post- secondary institutions. In the context of cutting that funding, they're imposing, by their own actions, huge cost pressures. Let's not even deal with wage negotiations. Let's talk about MSP premium cost increases and gas tax cost increases. Let's talk about ICBC premium increases and sales tax increases brought on by this government, which affect institutions. Those are direct costs brought on by this government's actions at the same time that they're cutting the funding to institutions.

Of course, we also have to think about the fact that these institutions operate in the real world, where infla- tion in this province is increasing at 3.3 percent. We don't even have to go to wage negotiations to figure out that this Liberal government has put institutions in an unbelievable squeeze play — cut their funding and then cut them loose in terms of how they're going to survive. Over the next two years funding to post-secondary education institutes will be cut by $28.3 million. That's less money, I'd say.

I know the government doesn't actually like to talk about "worse off" — for instance, when they make Pharmacare recipients worse off. But the institutions are worse off. The little pittance that the institutions are promised three years down the road, after four years of funding decreases, is an increase in the institutions of $10 million in the year '05-06. Even then, educational institutions and organizations will receive $18.9 million less in '05-06 than they did in '02- 03. Oh, there's a government that cares about students, isn't it? There's a government that wants to put the students' best interests first.

Balderdash. By their own actions, they are the ones that have made students worse off and the institutions themselves as well. In the next four years B.C. is expected to experience a 5 percent increase in the amount of post-secondary- age British Columbians. That's defined as the group of 18-to-29-year-olds. Our demographics show that popu- lation group will increase by 5 percent. The number of British Columbians in this age group is expected to increase at least until the year 2014. Post-secondary schools will be expected to serve an additional 9,652 full-time-equivalent students by the year '05-06.

So, at the same time that they're having their funding cut, these same institutions will have to serve almost 10,000 more students. [1710] The Ministry of Advanced Education has set a base- line of total credentials awarded — that's the number of full-time students who graduate from post- secondary institutions — at 54,052 for '01-02. That's right out of the service plan. That's expected to increase to 56,484 by the year '05-06, by the ministry's own ser- vice plan. That means that universities and colleges are being asked to hand out an extra 2,432 degrees, diplo- mas and certificates by the year '05-06.

Well, what does anybody care about that? This government is imposing those quotas on the institutions at the same time that it's actually reducing real funding as it stood in '02-03. It's more degrees that the universities and colleges have to award and with less funding. In addition, the government wants to increase stu- dent spaces in computer science, electrical and com- puter engineering, social and child protection, nursing, residential care workers and medical students, for a combined total of 16,596 extra student spaces in those areas — all with the reduced funding.

Even within their own service plan, the bare minimum that univer- sities and colleges must do…. They'll do it with re- duced funding, and then this government sets an addi- tional almost 17,000 degrees and certificates that they want the universities and colleges to deliver with less money than they had in '02-03. Funding is down, and demands, expectations and accountability measures are up. Universities and col- leges are being asked to do so much more with so much less. The government is surprised that collective bargaining broke down.

The statistics I've given you here haven't even begun to approach the situation of paying working people who work at the universities and colleges a fair wage. The Minister of Energy and Mines heckles and shows disdain for working people. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson shows absolute disdain for working people. The Minister for Deregulation takes great pride in having absolute disdain for work- ing people in this province. He suggests that he's for students.

The Minister of Labour himself gave the sta- tistic that teaching assistants provide 40 percent of the teaching to students, and that member, the Minister for Deregulation, says he's for students. How can he pos- sibly be for students when he attacks the people who teach those students? Absolutely. He's typical of his government. He's absolutely typical of his government. He thinks students learn on their own. He thinks students can show up in crowded classrooms with less funding and just learn on their own. That's what he thinks.

I'll tell you something: his view is shared, if not by every member — and I'm un- willing to go that far…. His view of absolute disdain for those people who teach students is shared by the vast majority of this Liberal government. [1715] Well, let's see what the universities think of this government and the terrible situation they've been put in. Let's just see. Let's hear the catcalls when we read from the University Presidents Council news release. Now, these are the university presidents, a conserva- tive bunch of people who know….

These are the very top people in the universities, who know how impor- tant it is to have a working relationship with the pro- vincial government. Here's what they said on February

5472 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 18, 2003, after this government introduced its last budget. The University Presidents Council…. By the way, thi s didn't get reported in the media. It's a ne ws release, though. It wasn't a secret document. Every Liberal got it. The Minister for Deregulation got this: "Universities disappointed in provincial advanced education budget." I quote: "'The provincial government's 2003-04 budget fails to address the growing public concern about access to post- secondary education,' said Dr.

Charles Jago, chair of the University Presidents Council of B.C." I'm quoting from the news release.

"'At a time when the age cohort for post-secondary education is growing rapidly,' Jago added, 'it is disappointing to see the lack of an overall plan, let alone adequate funding, to address the already critical shortage of capacity in the university system.' "'We know that the fastest-growing occupations require the most education,' Jago said, 'and that British Columbia already graduates significantly fewer degree recipients than the rest of Canada.'" I continue with the news release from the Univer- sity Presidents Council: "'A wave of additional students is now reaching university age, and because of limited funding growth from the province, our institutions will not be able to keep up with the demands,' said Don Avison, president of the University Presidents Council.

"'The most troublesome part of this is, it was entirely predictable,' said the University Presidents Council. Population demographics for British Columbia's youth population show the second-highest growth rate in the country over the next decade. "According to Avison, 'Those extra K-to-12 students that were housed in portable classrooms in the mid- nineties are now making their way to the door of post- secondary institutions across the province. Unfortunately, governments are not moving with sufficient speed to get ready to accommodate those students. This has resulted in ever-increasing entrance requirements.

The capacity crunch is already serious,' said Avison, 'and there was little indication today to believe that we are moving in the right direction.'" Mr. Speaker, never before have I seen such a damn- ing commentary from the University Presidents Coun- cil, but I welcome… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. J. MacPhail: … a n y L i b e r a l M L A t o s t a n d u p a n d demonstrate that there was such a damning news re- lease from the University Presidents Council. In fact, I think they'll see exactly the opposite — exactly the op- posite. But I'm willing to be challenged.

Let the mem- ber for Kamloops–North Thompson put his foghorn where his mouth is. Let him do that. Let him stand up and show how his record is not the worst — his gov- ernment. Let's go to those other people that the Minister for Deregulation condemns, maybe because they're fac- ulty. Maybe that's a level that that minister respects, being into class war every time he speaks. Let me read from the Confederation of University Faculty Associa- tions of British Columbia. These are the faculty that teach at our universities.

Let's read what they have to say. [1720] This, again, was released on February 18, 2003, the day of this Liberal government's last budget: "'Funding down for universities and colleges; further tuition in- creases inevitable,' say profs." I pause for a moment because one of the major issues in the dispute between the teaching assistants and UBC, on which this gov- ernment is now siding with the employer, is the fact that teaching assistants have to pay the massive tuition increases out of their own pockets where before they did not have to do that, nor do they have to in other jurisdictions.

So tuition increases being inevitable is absolutely key to understanding how absolutely ex- pected this bargaining dispute was and how this bar- gaining dispute is absolutely the creation of this Liberal government.

Here's what the Confederation of University Fac- ulty Associations said after this government's budget of February 18: "'Funding for post-secondary education will continue to decrease over the next three years,' the organization representing B.C. university professors noted today, February 18. 'By the year '05-06, B.C. universities and colleges will receive $19 million less than they do today — this despite a government-mandated enrolment increase of 9,850 students.

"'Despite a small increase in '05-06,' said Richard Coe, president of the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of B.C., 'after accounting for inflation, government funding per student that year will be near an all-time low.'" Oh, where's the member for Kamloops–North Thompson now? "Funding will be near an all-time low." That's exactly what it says here.

Then the con- cluding paragraph: "'Tuition fees will have more than doubled in the first three years of their mandate'" — meaning this Liberal government's mandate — "'if government carries through with its plans,' Coe said. 'At a time when the knowledge economy needs more university and college graduates, government cuts and tuition hikes are sending the wrong message to B.C.'s young people.'" Okay, here's a group that I know hardly any- body…. Well, no. Actually, this is a group that repre- sents students, but I know that many members in this chamber say this organization has no right to exist.

The member for Burquitlam actually spends, as far as I can tell, his entire political career trying to put the boots to the Canadian Federation of Students. He's contributed absolutely nothing else to the well-being of the province, but he spends his entire time putting the boots to here. But they do represent students, they have democratic elections, and they absolutely have a voice. This might come as a surprise to the members in the chamber. Here's what the Canadian Federation of Students said, and it's important that I say "I quote" because they actually use Liberalspeak that I just find reprehensible.

They mimic Liberalspeak, so I am quot- ing: "Rural College Funding Cuts Undermine Heart-

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5473 land Strategy; Students to Pay More for Lower Quality Post-Secondary Education." "Students today condemned the provincial budget for cutting $7 million in post-secondary institution operating grants in the coming year" — this was dated February 18, 2003 —"'It takes some nerve for the Premier to talk about a heartland strategy, when he continues to cut funding to rural colleges,' said Canadian Federation of Students chairperson Jaime Matten. 'The Minister of Finance and the Premier can't seriously expect people in rural B.C. to b

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0312pm-12
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0312pm 12
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	de43b2f847c82da542d29b164306e7bb43799eae

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).